In general, I noticed that now there are a lot of emotional posts, the authors of which, not to mention those who repasted them, cannot and even, perhaps, do not want to evaluate what was written with a sober look.
Alina Vitukhnovskaya, writer
And here is the post itself:
“You can’t say that the best are leaving. This is snobbery and categorization. You can only rate on specific parameters. Those who leave are those who are better educated, better informed, know foreign languages better, earn better money, understand politics, economics and humanitarian issues better, are more sensitive to moral issues, are more mobile, more adaptive, more determined, more modern. But to say that the best are leaving is impossible. It's not about personal opinions. Again, you can't say that. This is not sarcasm. The truth is impossible. But there are statistics. The outflow of qualified personnel in production, trade, service, plus sanctions. This will lead - and already leads - to structural problems in the economy, culture and society. If you chose to take offense at this post, take your mind off yourself and look at the big picture. And consider leaving. And yes, of course, the very best - consistent, courageous, whole - are sitting.
They said that the best are leaving, but the best according to the author. Even more snobbish language. Disgusting. Who can and wants to leave. And whoever doesn't want to, doesn't leave. It is also a political choice with its own preferences. Which "the smartest" in the event of a denouement may be late to receive. The logical contradiction is also noteworthy - “the smartest leave”, but at the same time “the smartest stay”.
My understanding is that going to jail after that is like proving your IQ. Here, too, the snobbery of the Soviet intellectual is fully shown, who always needs to emphasize that he is better than others, precisely because he always feels his inferiority, non-competitiveness. By the way, they impose their choice, because they themselves are not sure of it. But if "everyone does it," it will be calmer. Why else? If you are the best, why did you give up your rights and freedoms almost without any resistance for 20 years? The question is rhetorical. Obviously, we are dealing with a deep social complex. Now, having left, you need to prove that you are the best, as before, and even now, everyone continues to prove to each other that they are happy.
For a person imbued with the mantras of pop psychology, admitting that he is unhappy is like losing identity. Moreover, he was taught that being happy is more important than being socially successful, rich, beautiful, smart, after all. What for? Well, of course, from savings and so that no one is eager for a resource. Psychedelic revolutions, free love, Buddhism, Russian spirituality - all this is just so that superfluous people do not covet power and resources.
And so, from morning to evening, a person inspires himself and others that he is happy. And you ask him "How is it?" He won't answer. Why? Because happiness is an abstraction. Sticky norm. And even now, a person in the comments writes: “I am quite happy.” Seriously? In the midst of a "special operation"? Before the threat of nuclear weapons? What is it to be happy? Brain shutdown? Do you agree with everything? Drowsy-animal harmony with all-consuming existence?
They told me that someone defiantly (that is, publicly) regretted my passion for politics. Like, this is not something that remains in eternity. The residual dichotomy - "Either literature, or politics" does not stem from the real state of affairs, of course, but from the doomed repressive consciousness of the local "cultural figure", who, as a rule, is as cowardly as he is mediocre.
Meanwhile, each of them - people with erased faces and crumpled biographies - strives to cling to eternity. So my advice to them - do not forget to put a Crimean sandwich and “the same” tea with you before you die. Better loose than in bags. Without them, they say - they don’t take the locals into eternity. As for poetry, the same deformation occurs with it as with Facebook journalism, if you can call it that. She's getting worse and worse. And serves momentary emotional.
“God, how good it was for me in this city. With shops smelling of good light, with an artist or a poet on every corner. (c) Today the entire tape is in this. Vulgarity here is the sister of fear. It smelled of vulgarity, stupidity and nostalgia in one bottle. And nostalgia for its own vulgarity and stupidity. Only cozy. It's uncomfortable now, isn't it? “How good was it in Moscow”? Seriously? Oh, what happened? Where have you been all your life? Bad Soviet(!) poetry is like the perfume "Red Moscow" thrown into the grave of a soldier. Here is an excerpt from the poem:
“God, how good it was for me in this city.
Lord, how good it was for me in this city.
With shops smelling of good light, with an artist or a poet on every corner, with the wind from the turnstiles, baking baguettes at night, with a small life, although the city itself is huge, like a comet's plume, with -
Wait, but this is Moscow, isn't it?
Yes, Moscow, with its warm steam heating, with evil and violence non-resistance, at every corner a unique cultural phenomenon, with its diverse and amazing population.
Exactly, Lord. Bird City. I still dream about her for some reason. How did I manage to fall in love so much, get so addicted, get so stuck, flow in, so ...
Do you understand that this is the capital of evil?”
There is a banality of evil. But banality is also evil. This is the same banality. Defenders of this style write:
“The social trend is such that people do not care if this poem is highly artistic or not, it simply reflects the general, now mass, pain of the forced loss of their homes. responded, here they are posting. The trend lies in what is behind it, in the fact that such a topic suddenly began to resonate so massively, and not at all in “bad poetic taste”. If there was something better on this topic, they would post better. ”
But the problem is that post-Soviet LOMs present bad poetry as representative. Soviet-post-Soviet people always or almost always choose and promote the worst. In this sense, nothing has changed. That is why they have Pugacheva - a singer, and you yourself know who has the power. The problem is that these people do not promote good, let alone brilliant, authors. They promote something "below average". I noticed this trend back in the early 2000s. In the 1990s, just the way was open, if not for everyone, then for many. But then a kind of “vertical of mediocrity” began to be created - in literature, in the media, in politics, but everywhere. This served as the basis, became the most fertile ground for the current revanchism. From which those "smartest", but in fact - "the most average" and run away.